138 A. 924
Supreme Court of Connecticut First Judicial District, Hartford, January Term, 1927.[*]
WHEELER, C. J., MALTBIE, HAINES and JENNINGS, Js.[**]
Argued January 11th, 1927
Decided April 11th, 1927.
ACTION to recover damages for fraudulent representations alleged to have been made by the defendant to induce the plaintiff to indorse a promissory note, brought to the Superior Court in New London County and tried to the jury before Simpson, J.; verdict and judgment for the plaintiff for $6,711, and appeal by the defendant. No error.
John C. Geary, for the appellant (defendant).
Thomas E. Troland, for the appellee (plaintiff).
PER CURIAM.
Our examination of the evidence has satisfied us that the jury were warranted in finding that the representations as alleged were made and made to induce the plaintiff to indorse a note and renewals
Page 727
thereof which he subsequently had to pay, and that they in fact procured the making of the indorsement. The jury might also reasonably have found that the representations so made were false. Their conclusion was made upon conflicting evidence and since we must find it to have been reasonably reached the verdict must stand. The case is peculiarly one where great weight should be given the decision of the trial judge in refusing to set aside the verdict.
There is no error.